All Marijuana and Statements Suppressed in Nassau County Prostitution and Drug Case

Tilem & Associates, won a major victory after a Judge in Nassau County ordered that all evidence be suppressed in a Marihuana and Patronizing a Prostitute case. The evidence that was suppressed included both written and oral confessions as well as about a pound of Marihuana, a scale, grinder, baggies for packaging and a large amount of cash (over $4000). All of the evidence was ordered suppressed by the Judge after two detectives testified at a suppression hearing held in February and the Judge questioned their credibility.

The Charges dated back to an incident that occurred back in January 2013 at a motel in Nassau County, Detectives were conducting surveillance on a motel room that they believed was being used by prostitutes. When a male entered the room and left about 20 minutes later he was stopped by the police and questioned about what happened inside the motel room. Police also claimed that they observed marijuana in plain view in his car. They got the male to take them back up to the motel room to identify the prostitutes and they got the male to consent to searches of his car and home and waive his Miranda warnings and then write out a written confession

Tilem & Associates principal, Peter H. Tilem handled the suppression hearing and cross examined the two detectives. Upon cross-examination many inconsistencies were revealed in the testimony of the two detectives and it was revealed for the first time that they likely forcibly stopped the male by grabbing his car keys from his hand with out any lawful justification. Mr. Tilem, successfully argued that if the initial stop of the male was unconstitutional then all evidence that was recovered after the stop, including all statements needed to be suppressed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” a legal doctrine that requires evidence tainted by unlawful police conduct to be suppressed. In addition, Mr. Tilem cited the case of People v. DeBour which controls under what circumstances a police officer may stop, frisk, search and detain a person they encounter on the street.

In a written decision the Court found that “the testimony of the two detectives. . . lacked a consistency which should be expected of credible testimony.” In addition, the Court found that “the stop of the defendant . . .failed to meet the legal requirements for a stop.” “Further, the taking of the keys. . .amounted to a forcible detention which lacked a founded suspicion. . .”

In the end, the Court accepted all of Mr. Tilem’s arguments and suppressed all of the physical evidence and statements ad this case stands as a model of how many cases involving possession of guns or drugs should be handled. With “stop and frisk” continuing many thousands of citizens are illegally stopped, detained and searched every year. This case sends the message that the police must follow the Constitution and the law and failing to do so will have consequences.